A Ravaging Political Storm
over the Independence of former British Cameroons

Bamenda, capital of the North West Province in Cameroun, has witnessed major political events in recent history. It was the birthplace of the ruling CPDM party in Cameroun, as well as that of the SDF, the leading opposition political party. It now seems destined to play host to another major event as the trial of SCNC activists and that of Professor Martin Chia Ateh, for secession, gathers momentum.

2. The Examining Magistrate, Justice Angelina Atabong, in a Commital Order dated 03/04/2007, charges Professor Ateh for advocating secession of the North West and South West Provinces from La Republique du Cameroun, and for attempting to hold a public meeting at the Presbyterian Youth Centre, Azire, without first notifying the administrative authorities. The recorded statements suggest that Professor Ateh denies the first charge, on grounds that legally speaking, Southern Cameroons is not part of the Republic of Cameroon in as much as the legal formalities to consummate the union were not complied with. In the result, he states that as there was no legal marriage between the two countries as required by international law, the parties are, as it were, living in “sin” rather than “in holy matrimony.” Accordingly, since the union is not founded on legality, parties are free to go their separate ways in the event of disagreement. Secession implies breaking away from a legally constituted unit.

3. The facts of the matter are that the country now known as La Republique du Cameroun graduated from the status of a French Administered UN Trust Territory that was granted independence on 1st January 1960 with a seat at the UN in September of the same year. The International convention of the African Union enjoins emerging African states to respect the colonial boundaries inherited at independence.

That being the case, the boundaries of La Republique du Cameroun which attained independence on 1st January 1960 are clearly defined under international law, and cannot include the territory known as British Southern Cameroons which, at the material time of La Republique du Cameroon’s independence, was still a UN trust territory administered by Great Britain. For a charge of secession to succeed therefore, the prosecution has to establish that at some time subsequent to 1st January 1960, Southern Cameroons got legally incorporated as an integral part of La Republique du Cameroun.

4. It is accepted that there was a UN supervised plebiscite in February 1961 to ascertain how the inhabitants of Southern Cameroons wished to attain independence "by joining" either Nigeria or La Republique du Cameroun, both of which had attained independence in the previous year.

5. To understand what "independence by joining" means, one has to look at the UN provisions as to what independence to colonial territories implies. We refer particularly to Art 76b of the UN Charter which stipulates that independence must be total, and without any conditions, as well as to Art. 102 (1)& (2) of the Charter which states categorically that the terms of any union between a member state of the UN and another country have got to be evidenced in writing and a copy filed at the UN Secretariat which will publish it; but that failure to do so renders the arrangement invalid under international law, as it cannot be cited before any organ of the United Nations. It is respectfully submitted that where a UN Resolution seemingly goes contrary to the Articles of the UN Charter, it is the Charter provisions that prevail. Therefore, the vulturization or annexation of the UN trust territory of British Cameroons by both Nigeria and La Republique du Cameroun, with the tacit support of Great Britain, offends the UN Charter in the manner of granting independence to colonial territories. Besides, since the arrangement cannot be cited before any organ of the UN, it is evident that Her Majesty’s Government failed in the diligent execution of the trust responsibilities it had assumed in 1946 to lead the trust territory of British Cameroons to self-government or independence.

6. From the foregoing, it is clear that independence cannot be

conditional. It must be total, so the proper construction of the two alternatives put to the British Cameroons electorate is that firstly, the territory had to gain independence, before joining either of the neighbouring already independent states. As a non-independent state, British Southern Cameroons could not attain independence by being ceded, as the British Administering Authority did, by surrender of power over the Trust Territory, not to the Government of Southern Cameroons (even for a brief period to enable it to negotiate acceptable terms of joining La Republique du Cameroun), but simply transferred power over a UN Trust Territory to another foreign power to administer without clarification from the UN. The situation is the same for British Northern Cameroons that was transferred to Nigeria. It is thus clear that Great Britain, unlike France, failed to deliver independence to the Trust Territory of British Cameroons, and Her Majesty's Government must accept responsibility for the current political fallout.

7. In April 1961, by Res. 1608, the UN had stipulated that before the British trust over Southern Cameroons was to end on 1st October 1961, there was to be a tripartite conference comprising Britain as the Administering Authority, the Government of Southern Cameroons, and the Government of La Republique du Cameroun, to draw up a Treaty of the Union embodying the agreed and declared terms and understandings for the joining of Southern Cameroons to La Republique du Cameroun. Such a union treaty was to be the "marriage certificate" for the union and a copy had to be mandatorily filed at the UN Secretariat to be published by it. Failure to comply rendered the "union" not a marriage, but concubinage, and parties are free to disengage when they please without any formality.

8. Although there was a meeting in Foumban in July 1961 between

President Ahidjo of the sovereign Republic of Cameroon and Premier J.N. Foncha of the British Trust territory of Southern Cameroons, there was absent the British Administering Authority which held the reigns of power to commit the state of Southern Cameroons. The Foumban meeting could only be likened to that of a minor attempting to negotiate a contract with an adult, behind the back or without the concurrence of its guardian. Such an arrangement between parties which do not enjoy equal status at law is invalid. As both Nigeria and La Republique du Cameroun were already members of the United Nations when British Cameroons was being dismembered, they are caught by Art. 102 of the UN Charter which declares such "unions" are invalid under international law.

9. On the basis of the foregoing, it is difficult to see how a charge of secession can be sustained before an impartial judicial tribunal. Indeed what Professor Ateh is saying is that he was born in Njinikom, Bamenda, on 23rd August 1953 as a citizen of the Trust Territory of British Cameroons which was entitled to independence as prescribed by UN Charter, particularly Art. 76b. Great Britain undertook to lead the territory to unfettered independence when it assumed the role of Administering Authority. Professor Ateh, as a beneficiary of the UK Trust has not seen his independence, and is merely asserting the right to his country's independence guaranteed by virtue of UN Art. 76b as fortified by UN Res. 1608, in the absence of a Union Treaty joining his country (British Cameroons) to a foreign country (La Republique du Cameroun). The latter has illegally annexed and colonized his own country, so the charge of secession must fail since Southern Cameroons has never, legally, been part of La Republique du Cameroun.

The Competence of the Mezam High Court to try a matter on Self-determination

10. The question as to whether Courts in Cameroon are competent to try a matter on Self-determination of the people of Southern Cameroons came up before the African Commission on Human & Peoples’ Rights in Banjul in Communication 266/2003, pitting Kevin Mgwanga Gunme et al versus La Republique du Cameroon. In the Commission’s decision Ref. ACHPR/COMM/FA dated 15th June 2004 conveying the Admissibility of the Communication, the Commission had this to say:

“49. With respect to Art 56(5) which relates to exhaustion of local remedies, the Complainants submit that there are no local remedies to exhaust in respect of the claim for self-determination because this is a matter for an international forum and not a domestic one. The reason being that the variant of self-determination sought in this communication is a request for determination as to whether or not the “union” of La Republique du Cameroun and Southern Cameroons was effected in accordance with UN Resolutions, International Treaty obligations and indeed international law. This is clearly not a matter that can be determined by a domestic court.”

“50. The Respondent State concedes that no legal remedies exist with respect to the claim for self-determination………..”

11. Thus, before an international tribunal, La Republique du Cameroun conceded that there is no domestic tribunal in Cameroun that could validly try a case for self-determination. That being the case, and because Professor Ateh et al are being charged for asserting their fundamental human right for self-determination, the issue of the competence of the High Court in Mezam to try the accused should be raised at any stage in the proceedings, either in the High Court or in the Court of Appeals.

12. With regard to the second charge of attempting to hold a public meeting, it is clear from the recorded evidence before the Examining Magistrate that what the accused did was to invite 20 people to attend a workshop, which workshop never held. How twenty invited persons known to the accused could be construed to constitute a "public meeting" for which prior declaration had to be filed with the administrative authorities, is a transparent red herring and a flawed interpretation of domestic law, and has been introduced to justify the commital of someone of Professor Ateh's standing to languish in a prison den for common criminals. The Court should be urged to acquit and discharge the accused persons.

13. The way forward is for La Republique du Cameroun and Nigeria to refer the questions to the International Court of Justice as to whether or not, pursuant to the UN Charter and Resolutions, they could claim governance over portions of the former territory of British Cameroons. In this regard, Nigeria already has a compelling Tomlin ORDER issued in March 2002 by the Hon. Justice R.N. Ukeje, Chief Judge of the Federal High Court in Abuja, to prosecute this matter before the International Court of Justice. This would resolve the issues once and for all, and so avoid unnecessary turmoil in the Central African sub-region.

14. The outcome of the current proceedings in Bamenda is being monitored around the world, and may well turn out to serve the best interests of Southern Cameroons now trying to rediscover its lost identity. Pray God that He gives us men and women of integrity and courage in our Judiciary, but not boys and girls who would allow their “hands to be tied.”

Peace Profound!

By Mola Njoh Litumbe
Senior Citizen, Politician & Opinion Leader

Done on
American Independence Day 2007.

*******************************************************************************************************************************

Manipulation of public opinion: leaks and intellectual
gymnastics

 Parliament is presently in session and much amusement is coming out of the goings on in and out of the House, both from the opposition and the majority groups. The gallery politics that the opposition has played during the last 10 years has again come to the fore, in spite of efforts to manipulate public opinion to the contrary.Following the reported walkout of the opposition
parliamentary group over differences over the participation of Fon Doh who is serving a 15-year term for murder, and the suspension of the session, they came back to the House on resumption and we were informed that a CPDM Deputy read the 23 names of bureau members given him by the Speaker, apparently to the consternation of the same opposition that had come back to the House.

With reference to the mandates and mechanisms of the UN Human Rights Council (HRC), this written statement wishes to bring to the attention of the HRC current cases of grave human rights violations committed against indigenous peoples, minorities and other marginalised groups in Africa, Asia and the Middle East.